Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6210451" data-attributes="member: 42582">This seems to me to relate to the "drifting" thread that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] started a week or so ago. What counts as playing a particular game? Especially a particular edition of D&D, which will involve rulebooks written by multiple authors with perhaps differing conceptions of the details of the play of their game, and in an environment where they are trying to maximise their sales across the whole RPGing community?D&D 4e as published contains inherent contradictions: for instance, a chapter called "Rewards" goes on to set out an XP system which basically guarantees that 1 encounter's worth of XP will be earned every hour or so of play, and then a treasure system that guarantees that the acquisition of treasure will be a function of level gain, hence XP gain, hence nothing more than spending time playing the game. These aren't rewards - certainly nothing like the role of XP or treasure in classic D&D, where both really were rewards for skilled play! This is XP as a pacing mechanism for the campaign, and treasure as simply another component of PC build as one element within that overall pacing.Or another example: the contradiction between the PHB instruction on skill challenges, at p 179 - players choose skills - and p 73 of the DMG - GM chooses skills - which is immediately contradicted on p 75 of the DMG - encourage players to choose skills!Or another example: the DMG sets out level appropriate DCs and skill challenges as the way to resolve treks, environmental effects etc but the PHB skill chapter has 3E-ish process-sim DCs; and the DMG similarly has such DCs in its surprise rules on p 37. Essentials resolves this particular contradiction by rewriting the skill descriptions with reference to level-appropriate skills, and by dropping the process-sim chart in its surprise rules on p 191 of the RC, in favour of opposed Stealth and Perception checks. (In Essentials, the only skill with process-sim DCs is Athletics, for use in combat - because 4e combat movement rules are process-sim rather than FitM, unlike just about every other part of the resolution system.)Or another example: there is no "Take 20" rule anywhere in 4e except in a single throw-away discussion of searching for treasure on p 41 - which then goes on to actually frame the DCs in level appropriate terms! ie with reference to metagamed DCs that will lead to auto-success if players are allowed to take 20, because they are balanced around the need to actually roll the d20.In actual play, these contradictions have to be dealt with somehow. I think that the most consistent way of making sense of the whole package, and using it to its best advantage, is to resolve in the direction of "indie"-style play (except for the lingering process sim of in-combat movement - keeping that as process sim is key to making the combat system work, even though it creates headaches at the interface of combat and non-combat resolution).I think that so many of those who dislike 4e criticise it precisely for its indie-esque features shows that I'm not alone in this. They, too, can see how the game most naturally lends itself to being played. (And I think they are basically the same sorts of RPGers who criticise Marvel Heroic for being nothing but a dice-rolling game.)Besides the particular reasons I gave upthread, I think the most telling consideration is this: where are the "indie"-style 3E/PF games? I think [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] is the only poster I have seen talk about running, or trying to run, 3E/PF in this sort of way. (I am not sure how [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] runs PF, but I think TwoSix also agrees that 4e is easier to play indie style.)Indie-style Moldvay Basic, or perhaps a very stripped back style of AD&D, would strike me as more feasible, but I've never tried it. And the PCs may not be mechanically robust enough, at least at low levels - others' thoughts on that would be very welcome!</blockquote>

Verification